A parametric analysis of prospect theory's functionals for the general population

被引:146
作者
Booij, Adam S. [1 ]
van Praag, Bernard M. S. [1 ]
van de Kuilen, Gijs [2 ]
机构
[1] Amsterdam Sch Econ, Tinbergen Inst, Cesifo, IZA,DIW, NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Tilburg Univ, CentER, TIBER, NL-5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands
关键词
Prospect theory; Utility for gains and losses; Loss aversion; Subjective probability weighting; EXPECTED-UTILITY-THEORY; RISK-AVERSION; FREE ELICITATION; DECISION; PREFERENCE; CHOICE; CALIBRATION; ECONOMICS; LOSSES; GENDER;
D O I
10.1007/s11238-009-9144-4
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article presents the results of an experiment that completely measures the utility function and probability weighting function for different positive and negative monetary outcomes, using a representative sample of N = 1,935 from the general public. The results confirm earlier findings in the lab, suggesting that utility is less pronounced than what is found in classical measurements where expected utility is assumed. Utility for losses is found to be convex, consistent with diminishing sensitivity, and the obtained loss-aversion coefficient of 1.6 is moderate but in agreement with contemporary evidence. The estimated probability weighting functions have an inverse-S shape and they imply pessimism in both domains. These results show that probability weighting is also an important phenomenon in the general population. Women and lower educated individuals are found to be more risk averse, in agreement with common findings. In contrast to previous studies that ascribed gender differences in risk attitudes solely to differences in the degree utility curvature, however, our results show that this finding is primarily driven by loss aversion and, for women, also by a more pessimistic psychological response toward the probability of obtaining the best possible outcome.
引用
收藏
页码:115 / 148
页数:34
相关论文
共 78 条
[21]  
Camerer C.F., 2000, CHOICES VALUES FRAME, P288
[22]   The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework [J].
Camerer, CF ;
Hogarth, RM .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 1999, 19 (1-3) :7-42
[23]   VIOLATIONS OF THE BETWEENNESS AXIOM AND NONLINEARITY IN PROBABILITY [J].
CAMERER, CF ;
HO, TH .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 1994, 8 (02) :167-196
[24]   Which error story is best? [J].
Carbone, E ;
Hey, JD .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2000, 20 (02) :161-176
[25]   INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR RISK AVERSION AND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION [J].
COHN, RA ;
LEWELLEN, WG ;
LEASE, RC ;
SCHLARBAUM, GG .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 1975, 30 (02) :605-620
[26]   Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory [J].
Cox, James C. ;
Sadiraj, Vjollca .
GAMES AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR, 2006, 56 (01) :45-60
[27]  
Cubitt RobinP., 2001, J ECON METHODOL, V8, P385, DOI DOI 10.1080/13501780110103748
[28]   PROSPECT VERSUS UTILITY [J].
CURRIM, IS ;
SARIN, RK .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1989, 35 (01) :22-41
[29]  
Davidson D., 1957, DECISION MAKING EXPT
[30]   Estimating risk attitudes using lotteries: A large sample approach [J].
Donkers, B ;
Melenberg, B ;
Van Soest, A .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2001, 22 (02) :165-195